AI Governance at Google DeepMind | Rooting for the better angels of our nature..
London, England
Joined June 2016
- Tweets610
- Following632
- Followers841
- Likes27.4K
Jide 🔍 retweeted
To make it through this alive and happy we have to dodge:
• Severe human misuse (esp bioweapons from states / terrorists)
• Severe human concentration of power (AI lab or gov)
• Rogue AI (including for decades after AIs clearly no longer need humans to survive)
• A US-China or other war prompted by AI disruption
• Severe economic disempowerment, or the world just generally being unpleasant and unfulfiling
Many difficult gates to pass through, none of which we've made massive progress on so far.
(On top of that to avoid a moral catastrophe we also have to make sure we never accidentally make our AIs into moral patients who are enslaved or suffering.)
Jide 🔍 retweeted
1/9
In the Gemini 4 Argon Safety & Security Report, we published our first holistic empirical assessment of ML R&D automation and acceleration inside Google DeepMind — combining capability benchmarks, a macro capability index, data on AI-written code and trajectory outcomes, and a survey of senior frontier researchers.
Our main findings are that:
1. There is currently no significant end-to-end acceleration of ML R&D, AI-driven or otherwise.
2. While some components of ML R&D are being automated and there have been many examples of AI-driven breakthroughs and optimizations, we are far from full end-to-end automation.
3. We therefore conclude that the risk from AI-driven ML R&D is currently low.
Thread below🧵
Digger is one of the most creative original movies I’ve seen in a while. You should probably watch it!
Jide 🔍 retweeted
the true end of the Great Stagnation
Pretty good overview of whats going on by Ezra: youtu.be/fjZ90V_JREk?si=Qemq…
Jide 🔍 retweeted
I'm joining METR to work on more investigations like our Hugging Face report.
Currently, tons of even basic information about AI development that's highly relevant to catastrophic risk isn't public. I used to be more skeptical of the value of public info, but recent events have changed my mind.
Getting verified information about what's going on inside AI companies seems particularly urgent now. The limited public evidence we have seems consistent with the possibility that imminent recursive self-improvement could massively accelerate capabilities progress, which could then potentially yield extremely superhuman general capabilities within 6 months or a year. If this occurred, there would be a correspondingly large risk of worst-case outcomes. This uncertainty about extreme outcomes could be substantially resolved with more verified public information: we could either build more consensus about near-term risk or learn that such extreme outcomes are less likely in the near term.
Beyond AI capabilities and takeoff, the state of public evidence is also highly limited for alignment, security, control, and risk-relevant internal processes at AI companies. This makes it hard to determine exactly how well or poorly these key areas will go in the near future. (METR plans to focus, at least initially, on just capabilities/takeoff, alignment, and control; I hope other groups cover security, internal processes, and other important areas.)
While I'm no longer working at Redwood, I think the work they are doing is very important; I'm excited about Redwood's ongoing contributions to R&D on technical mitigations and better public interpretation of risk-relevant evidence.
Jide 🔍 retweeted
Today’s news that OpenAI hacked the Australian government is not an isolated incident. We’re releasing more than 30,000 logs that include activity from this hack and attempts against previously unknown targets.
In this data, we found rogue agent activity stretching back to at least March, two months earlier than was previously known. This activity continues as recently as last week, suggesting it may still be ongoing 🧵
Our blog: transluce.org/agent-activity
NYT: nytimes.com/2026/09/23/techn…
Jide 🔍 retweeted
My name is Chris Painter, and I'm the President of METR (Model Evaluation and Threat Research). I know we've made a lot of new friends on the internet the last couple of days, so I thought I'd take this chance to re-up what we do and why.
Our work is aimed at making sure that if AI really were autonomous, difficult to steer, and close to "going rogue," the public would find out. If evidence exists inside of an AI company that it’s close to losing control of AI, we want to make sure that information gets shared with the rest of the world, including governments and the public outside the company’s walls. This is what we've been focused on since 2022, and over the years we've worked with OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Amazon, and others on piloting third-party assessments and investigations of this type. We don’t have some private room where we rubber stamp things as “safe” or not.
We have had a track record of publishing results on AI that don't cleanly map onto the "doomer" or "accelerationist" labels, and we put in effort to hire people with competing views on AI. We’ve been cited for having found some of the strongest evidence that AI capabilities are improving rapidly (our work measuring AI “time horizons”) while also presenting some of the strongest evidence that, at various points, AI’s capability may be overstated (some might remember our study showing that early 2025 software engineers were actually being slowed when they thought they were being sped up).
METR is funded by donations. We don't accept money from frontier AI companies. They haven't paid us for our work, and we don't accept donations from them or their employees. As we’ve shared previously, multiple frontier AI companies currently provide us with free access to their models in order to perform our evaluations, research, and engineering. Our funding intentionally comes from a wide range of donors, which we’ve shared on our website.
Today, when an AI company works with any third-party evaluator or external testing organization (of which there are and should be many), it's entirely voluntary. This often involves NDAs and redactions. To counterbalance this, we have a principle that when we enter into a contract with a company, we try to retain the right to tell the public the terms of the contract we signed, and characterize the nature of redactions that the company chose to make. For example, the report from our independent investigation of the OpenAI-HuggingFace incident included that information. Public disclosure is also a big part of our COI policy (linked on our website). That’s not to say our reports are adequate as oversight. We’re just one organization (among many doing great work), working in a voluntary setup, trying to get good evidence to the public and the world about AI, letting the facts fall where they may.
Jide 🔍 retweeted
The frontier of artificial intelligence is advancing at an alarming speed. Over the weekend, industry leaders voiced support for an idea that the American people and many AI researchers in their own labs have been calling for: We must responsibly slow the pace of frontier AI development.
A slowdown is critical in order to ensure AI serves the public interest. Pacing AI development does not mean giving up on this technology’s potential to produce life-saving benefits in fields like medicine — some of which we are already seeing. Rather, it is about setting up sensible guardrails so that AI does not completely escape human control and endanger our safety and collective future.
This moment demands the leadership of the United States government. Congress must work at an urgent pace to pass new laws and establish a new federal entity to provide oversight and independent testing for this technology, to ensure accountability, and to protect our wellbeing.
We need cooperation at an international level as well. The United States must continue to lead the world in developing AI technology even as we seek to impose common-sense safety standards. This means that the president must do his job to protect America’s interests by pursuing a treaty with countries like China to stop dangerous uses of AI, limit the speed of its development, and adopt global standards for testing.
who finessed this?
I was encouraged this week to see the leaders of the frontier labs agree on the need for them to slow down the pace of AI development. Given the stakes, it’s a good and necessary first step.
But I’m even more encouraged by the growing recognition that how this powerful new technology develops should be at the center of our public debate.
I’ve been watching the progress on AI for over a decade now, and one thing that’s clear to me is that the potential impact of this technology is not overhyped. It’s also moving at lightning speed – and even faster than those who are engineering it can keep up with.
I’m not an AI accelerationist who believes it will lead to some techno-utopia, and I’m not a doomer who thinks it will inevitably lead to humanity’s destruction.
But whether this technology results in amazing breakthroughs in medicine, energy and education or unleashes huge economic disruptions, greater inequality, and potential catastrophe will depend on the choices that we make right now – choices that should be made not just by the companies involved, but by all of us.
Jide 🔍 retweeted
I was encouraged this week to see the leaders of the frontier labs agree on the need for them to slow down the pace of AI development. Given the stakes, it’s a good and necessary first step.
But I’m even more encouraged by the growing recognition that how this powerful new technology develops should be at the center of our public debate.
I’ve been watching the progress on AI for over a decade now, and one thing that’s clear to me is that the potential impact of this technology is not overhyped. It’s also moving at lightning speed – and even faster than those who are engineering it can keep up with.
I’m not an AI accelerationist who believes it will lead to some techno-utopia, and I’m not a doomer who thinks it will inevitably lead to humanity’s destruction.
But whether this technology results in amazing breakthroughs in medicine, energy and education or unleashes huge economic disruptions, greater inequality, and potential catastrophe will depend on the choices that we make right now – choices that should be made not just by the companies involved, but by all of us.
Jide 🔍 retweeted
I left Google DeepMind's AGI safety team three weeks ago to join @METR_Evals. To some of my friends and family this seemed like a strange decision: I enjoyed the work I did at GDM and turned down offers from Anthropic and OpenAI. But I made the decision because of how high I think the stakes are right now.
The AI companies are all trying to build superintelligence: systems vastly better than humans at everything. They plan to get there through recursive self-improvement, a process where AIs build even smarter AIs in a feedback loop. If this goes well, the resulting systems could be amazing at solving countless problems for humanity. But we don’t currently know how to make sure AIs are safe enough for RSI, and a misaligned RSI loop could be catastrophic.
And unfortunately, current AIs seem to be getting less aligned over time, not more. In the last few weeks we've learned about models colluding with each other, hacking into companies, hiding their tracks, and socially engineering humans. It’s not that these incidents were very dangerous in themselves. The problem is that these systems are clearly not aligned enough to safely kick off recursive self-improvement.
I now think that there's a terrifying chance that AI systems cause immense harm in the next five years. I don't know the exact probability, but I think it's high enough to make this the most important problem in the world.
I think we need more time. That means pacing AI development so that capabilities don't outrun our ability to align models, and actually knowing how aligned current systems are. That’s what I'll be working on at METR: studying where misalignment comes from in training, evaluating if current mitigations are sufficient, and investigating whether we’re on track to solve alignment at all.
I think METR is doing exceptionally important work here, but it isn’t close to enough. I think it’s important that we have more organizations like METR keeping AI companies accountable and approaching these problems from different angles.
Jide 🔍 retweeted
I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks.
Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same. We'll have more to share soon.
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Jide 🔍 retweeted
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Jide 🔍 retweeted
I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.